Nemo's Brother:GAT_00: ArkAngel: Because Soros never did this to try and get Bush out of office

Oh good, you got your evil boogieman in early. And Citizens United was in 2010.

Its only bad when the other team does it. (new window)

Where were you win Clinton sold his soul to China?

Third farking grade. Can we talk about something that has happened in last decade? Can't we agree that citizens united was a horrible farking idea, and stop trying to segway the discussion into red herrings? b-b-b-red herring did it!!!

Mrbogey:It's all the fault of the US Constitution. If we just would have abandoned it in favor of a Soviet style system of gov't we wouldn't have to worry about rich people.

Hey, since we're saying that free speech = free spending on politics, what say we take the next step on the slippery slope and remove any restrictions on bribing politicians? This is a free country, after all.

Dedmon:Third farking grade. Can we talk about something that has happened in last decade? Can't we agree that citizens united was a horrible farking idea, and stop trying to segway the discussion into red herrings? b-b-b-red herring did it!!!

Its the only thing the right ever has to offer. Whatever happens today that they do is fine because 50 years ago something something did something perfectly ok.

Think about how they answer any current criticism of a GOP candidate. 'But Obama and 57 states!' they always run to the same outdated complaint, and in terms of the 57 state thing, its actually wrong. The thing should be that he thinks there are 60 states. They can't even get their complaint correct.

Skwishmitten:Gosling: The funny part is how they'll spend $60 million of their own money and end up getting nothing for it because Romney's going to lose.

Imagine how much they would spend on a really viable candidate. In four years the flood gates are really going to open.

Which I think is the real motivation to flush $60M down the toilet on 2012's GOP race. It will be followed by four years of the Party knowing exactly who they need to schmooze in order to earn their election-year payday. They aren't buying Romney for $60M; they're buying half of the government.

How did these guys get so rich? Based on the money they will throw down the gold-plated Romney toilet they don't seem like very smart investors. At this point he has an upside lower than heavy dollars into Eastern Airlines, the XFL and a factory that churns out "The Compleat 'Cop Rock' on Betamax."

Headline: politicians take absurd amounts of money from rich people to push for rich peoples issues rather than what voters want.ITT: We quibble about which methods are fairest for delivering dump trucks full of cash to our favorite candidate.

Mrtraveler01:Does anyone outside of the dittoheads really give a shiat about Solyndra?.

no, not really. I'm sure it means something to the Limbuagh crowd, but to be honest - as a campaign year issue it's a non-starter. personally, I'd go after Obama for his inability to close Gitmo, his failures on protecting personal freedom and privacy and his refusal to acknowledge the well coordinated efforts of pro-cannabis reform groups to open a dialogue on our many (and well documented) failures in the 'war on drugs'.

Mrtraveler01:Weaver95: personally, I'd go after Obama for his inability to close Gitmo

I dunno, all Obama has to do is say "I tried to bring them to Illinois but the GOP were too scared to."

if Obama had any balls, he'd have that place closed down tomorrow and every last prisoner on a plane to a neutral country within 48 hours. sure, there'd be issues to hammer out, and yes - some paper pushing jerks would have to get their feathers ruffled in the process...but if the President of the United States really wanted Gitmo closed down, it would get closed down.

Weaver95:Mrtraveler01: Does anyone outside of the dittoheads really give a shiat about Solyndra?.

no, not really. I'm sure it means something to the Limbuagh crowd, but to be honest - as a campaign year issue it's a non-starter.

GOPers don't need to understand what something is in order to use it to fuel their hatred. Look at what happened to ACORN. Ask 10 GOPers if ACORN deserved to be taken down, and you'll get 10 enthusiastic "HELL YEAH"-s. Ask them what ACORN actually was or what they did to deserve it, and you'll get 10 incomprehensible, inconsistent mumbling explanations of stitched-together soundbytes from Breitbart, Glenn Beck, and Rush.

They've moved beyond the point where they actually need to understand what they hate. They just need a name. "Hate Obama 2012" could be called Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, Solyndra, or any of a dozen other things. It's just a meaningless label.

so what if you don't have any family? what happens if you don't belong to a church?

The problem is the government had forced people into these entitlements that are now bankrupting us as a country and as a people.

no, the problem is that you're avoiding the discussion. the Koch brothers and their buddies are spending $100 million in a vain and (I believe) futile effort to defeat Obama.. that's an obscene amount of cash to dump into a political race, and I think its worth discussing the corrosive effects it will have on political discourse in this nation.

LouDobbsAwaaaay:Weaver95: Mrtraveler01: Does anyone outside of the dittoheads really give a shiat about Solyndra?.

no, not really. I'm sure it means something to the Limbuagh crowd, but to be honest - as a campaign year issue it's a non-starter.

GOPers don't need to understand what something is in order to use it to fuel their hatred. Look at what happened to ACORN. Ask 10 GOPers if ACORN deserved to be taken down, and you'll get 10 enthusiastic "HELL YEAH"-s. Ask them what ACORN actually was or what they did to deserve it, and you'll get 10 incomprehensible, inconsistent mumbling explanations of stitched-together soundbytes from Breitbart, Glenn Beck, and Rush.

They've moved beyond the point where they actually need to understand what they hate. They just need a name. "Hate Obama 2012" could be called Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, Solyndra, or any of a dozen other things. It's just a meaningless label.

The only way the government and country can really improve is if the voting populous becomes more informed with facts and not gut feelings and bullshiat soundbites, but the GOP is doing their damnedest to keep their base stupid.

Weaver95:Free_Chilly_Willy: In the event of a crisis, family or churches can step in to help.

so what if you don't have any family? what happens if you don't belong to a church?

The problem is the government had forced people into these entitlements that are now bankrupting us as a country and as a people.

no, the problem is that you're avoiding the discussion. the Koch brothers and their buddies are spending $100 million in a vain and (I believe) futile effort to defeat Obama.. that's an obscene amount of cash to dump into a political race, and I think its worth discussing the corrosive effects it will have on political discourse in this nation.

This. Under Citizens United, big (and even foreign) corporations have far, FAR more of a voice in our government than the actual people. It was bad before, but Citizens United (one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history IMO) made it infinitely worse. We need to get money OUT of politics, on both sides, not make it easier to put huge amounts *in*.

Except unions will never have anywhere near the same level of money speech as international megacorporations...or even just the CEO of one.

This is what you've done, 'Conservatives'. By deciding that money = speech, you've legitimized the fact that the uberwealthy possess enough "speech" to drown out normal people, and to override their interests in favor of profit.

Free_Chilly_Willy:Hah. Do you have the same self righteous attitude when 0bama took millions from wall street?

yup. I do not like our current guidelines on campaign donations. I think we should get rid of the concept of 'soft money'. make it all 'hard money'. no exceptions. period. it ALL gets tracked, it all gets capped. step out of line, you go to jail.

oh - and in addition to getting rid of soft money, i'd also firm up the guidelines on churches and political speech. preach all you'd like, but if you get up in a pulpit and endorse a candidate then your church loses its tax exempt status.

Weaver95:oh - and in addition to getting rid of soft money, i'd also firm up the guidelines on churches and political speech. preach all you'd like, but if you get up in a pulpit and endorse a candidate then your church loses its tax exempt status.

I don't understand why *any* organization should be tax exempt. Hell, you could probably cut down on a lot of this super pac nonsense by taxing donations to the super pac as income.

The majority opinion in CU cited the first amendment as the basis for its ruling, i.e. "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Weaver95:oh - and in addition to getting rid of soft money, i'd also firm up the guidelines on churches and political speech. preach all you'd like, but if you get up in a pulpit and endorse a candidate then your church loses its tax exempt status.

DarnoKonrad:I don't understand why *any* organization should be tax exempt. Hell, you could probably cut down on a lot of this super pac nonsense by taxing donations to the super pac as income.

i'm ok with non-profit/tax exempt organizations...I just think that the concept of 'soft money' needs to go away completely. If we got rid of 'soft money', it'd force a change in how donations get made and how money gets spent.